Nato attack: Possible action against those involved, says Pentagon

Final inquiry report to determine whether Nato or ISAF forces were at fault.


Express December 28, 2011
Nato attack: Possible action against those involved, says Pentagon

WASHINGTON: A Pentagon spokesperson on Wednesday said that possible action against those involved in the Salala check post attack cannot be ruled out, Express News reported.

The spokesperson said that punishments will be handed out on the basis of the final inquiry report, adding that the report will determine whether the attack was a mistake on the part of NATO or ISAF forces.

Pentagon said that NATO and US forces in Afghanistan have been advised to improve cooperation with Pakistan.

Earlier the American military briefed Pakistan’s army chief on its investigation into US air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghan border last month, officials said Tuesday.

A report by military investigators was delivered to General Ashfaq Kayani on Sunday by a US officer based in Islamabad, who explained the findings to the general, Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby told reporters.

“We wanted General Kayani to be able to see the entire thing,” he said. The approach represented “an appropriate professional courtesy” to Kayani, he added.

The US and Pakistan have since disagreed about the precise sequence of events in the deadliest single cross-border attack of the 10-year war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan denies shooting first, and accused the Americans of an intentional attack on its troops.

The US report provides more details on the November 25-26 air strikes that were a result of a series of mistakes and botched communications on both sides — reflecting an underlying mistrust between the two countries.

The air strikes have damaged the precarious US-Pakistani partnership and provoked outrage in Islamabad, which retaliated by cutting off NATO supply routes to Afghanistan and evacuation of the Shamsi airbase by US forces.

(Read: US military briefs General Kayani on Nato attack report)

COMMENTS (23)

Hasan Mehmood | 12 years ago | Reply @Harry Stone: Judging by the cliche / platitude ridden bland narrative, you seem more like a USIS (United States Information Services) employee. You seem to imply that USA cares more about the rights of its citizens than most of the liberal / democratic European Govts which see no harm in ICC. The lengths you are prepared to go to protect your citizens from prosecution does not match with the rights you are willing to concede to third parties. RAYMOND DAVIS case is a prime example. Would you let Pakistan claim diplomatic immunity if the roles were reversed? Can you imagine SWAT teams bursting through doors in the middle of the night and killing women and children (unintentionally of course) on mere suspicion of anti state elements in the USA as you routinely do in Afghanistan. I rest my case. Its sheer arrogance of being a super power. As an unrelated example the same mindset seems to be at work in dealing with KYOTO PROTOCOL on global warming.
Harry Stone | 12 years ago | Reply

@Hasan Mehmood:

If this is how America has conducted its affairs since that nation was founded it is not arrogance? It is part of the legal culture. Every nation has its own set of laws and the citizens of a nation except to have those laws enforced fairly. They also expect protection from their government and also to be protected by their government. The laws in PAK and how they are enforced and the protections bestowed are very different than those of the US. Each nation has a separate legal framework for its military but the bases of that is also found in the national framework.

As you relate this to the NATO attack I am not sure any laws were broken as it directly relates to the attack. Those who actually fired the shots were acting under what they considered to be lawful orders. They were receiving fire and were returning fire. Had there been a clear understanding that the fire they were receiving was coming from a PAK position then I am sure the NATO forces would have ceased unless they felt they were in danger. This is known as the fog of war.

As to your reference of the rape incident, I am unaware of it. What I do know is if it happened then it was prosecuted under the Status of Forces Agreement in effect at the time. Most US SOF agreements outline what crimes will be prosecuted by the host nation and which will be reserved for the US. Even in the US if a military member commits a crime, the individual is not tried in civilian court unless the US government choses to wave its jurisdiction.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ